You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given the sheer volume of software that is implemented with the help of boilerplates and templates, I think it would be good to clarify as much as possible when care needs to be given to ownership, copyright, and licensing.
I think this is especially interesting with editors & IDEs that collect & use coding patterns from the internet.
My understanding is that in many cases, using or following a boilerplate is like using or following a pattern and not subject to copyright. Software patents are another discussion, don't think it should be a real issue in many cases. Here are some references I found about using or following a pattern:
In some cases a boilerplate or template could be considered "canonical", or the best & simplest alternative for an implementation. My understanding is that at least up to a certain point, this would be like using a pattern and not subject to copyright.
Here is a related discussion on Stack Exchange with quite a bit of useful-looking info:
Considering that the generated artifacts are simple and likely canonical, I am thinking this effort was overkill.
So my understanding and conclusion so far is that for boilerplates & templates that are not too complex, the copyright should not be a real issue.
I think it would be ideal to gain a better, more concrete understanding over time.
P.S. I think it is good practice to give reference when using boilerplate & template code in any case. This is similar to projects giving credit for using public domain code.
Some projects have been using public domain licenses to avoid ownership & copyright issues. Unfortunately there had been questions in some jurisdictions such as Germany.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Given the sheer volume of software that is implemented with the help of boilerplates and templates, I think it would be good to clarify as much as possible when care needs to be given to ownership, copyright, and licensing.
I think this is especially interesting with editors & IDEs that collect & use coding patterns from the internet.
I found this answer for boilerplate code:
with reference to idea-expression distinction from Wikipedia:
My understanding is that in many cases, using or following a boilerplate is like using or following a pattern and not subject to copyright. Software patents are another discussion, don't think it should be a real issue in many cases. Here are some references I found about using or following a pattern:
In some cases a boilerplate or template could be considered "canonical", or the best & simplest alternative for an implementation. My understanding is that at least up to a certain point, this would be like using a pattern and not subject to copyright.
Here is a related discussion on Stack Exchange with quite a bit of useful-looking info:
and this blog article happened to show up in the top-right corner as well:
I had made a utility in the past that generates Apache Cordova projects programmatically to avoid potential questions about using templates: https://www.npmjs.com/package/generate-cordova-package
Considering that the generated artifacts are simple and likely canonical, I am thinking this effort was overkill.
So my understanding and conclusion so far is that for boilerplates & templates that are not too complex, the copyright should not be a real issue.
I think it would be ideal to gain a better, more concrete understanding over time.
P.S. I think it is good practice to give reference when using boilerplate & template code in any case. This is similar to projects giving credit for using public domain code.
Some projects have been using public domain licenses to avoid ownership & copyright issues. Unfortunately there had been questions in some jurisdictions such as Germany.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: